Congressional Negotiators Reach Deal on Long Term Funding For FAA

For the past several years, the FAA has been funded on a stopgap basis, and there was even a period when the authorized funding ended and the FAA had to cease all but critical safety operations as Congress bickered over funding.

Now for the first time since 2007, Congressional negotiators in the House and Senate have reached a compromise deal to fund the FAA for the next four years.

The bill authorizes $63 billion for the FAA through the 2015 budget year. It includes compromises on several difficult issues that divided lawmakers along party lines and by region, including air service subsidies for rural communities, safety regulation of cargo shipments of lithium batteries, and rules governing the formation of airline and railroad unions.

The last details of the agreement were hammered out behind closed doors over the past week. Negotiators met Tuesday afternoon to congratulate each other on reaching what they said was a major victory, and to receive a copy of the final bill.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told lawmakers involved in the negotiations he wanted them to sign the agreement by the end of the day. Final passage of the bill by the House and Senate is expected sometime in the next two weeks.

The FAA's long-term operating authority expired in 2007. The agency has continued to limp along under a series of 23 short-term extensions, but its ability to commit to decisions on major acquisition programs that extend over many years, like air traffic modernization, was hindered by the uncertainty over how much it could spend and by a lack of direction from Congress.

The key issues that were resolved by the package include new limitations on the Essential Air Service, which provides service to rural communities that have few flight alternatives; funding the NextGen air traffic control system modernization at a cost of $1 billion for each year (though it isn't above the amount spent annually in each of the past two years); changes to union rules; and adopting international standards on shipment of lithium batteries even as the FAA and air safety groups had called for more stringent measures.

Showdown Looms Over FAA and Federal Gas Taxes

The fight over FAA funding will once again rear its ugly head as the September 16 deadline looms and Congressional Democrats and Republicans can't come to an agreement on authorizing another extension.

When the sides allowed the tax to lapse, the FAA lost nearly $250 million in revenues, which funds FAA operations, infrastructure improvements, and safety programs (although the Department of Transportation shifted funds around to keep safety and air traffic control operating). At the heart of the fight is continuing to operate a rural airline program to small airports.

But that fight is chump change next to the looming showdown over the extension of federal gas taxes. We're talking about a gas tax that provides $52 billion in revenue and funds hundreds of thousands of jobs in places like New York (118,000+ jobs) and Texas (128,000+ jobs) alone.

federal authorization for the federal gas taxes ends on September 30, and so far there's no indication that Congress will extend the tax, which is used to fund infrastructure maintenance and improvements throughout the country.

Both the federal authority to collect the 18.4 cents a gallon in federal gas tax and authorization to spend the revenue on transit and highway projects are due to expire.

“When Congress comes back, they’re only going to have 11 days to take action,” said Susan Martinovich, president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “There is a crisis brewing.”

Until the FAA extension turned into a major test of wills between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, it was considered relatively routine for Congress to extend current funding while working on big spending packages.

The Senate balked when the House sent over an FAA extension with other provisions attached. The Senate finally buckled and approved the extension, raising the fear that House Republicans might repeat the move when that extension expires Sept. 16 and when the two surface transportation measures come due two weeks later.

The state administrators said that the Senate had committed to passing a six-month surface transportation extension but that House Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-Fla.) had not responded to their inquiries.

Although the two houses are in final negotiations over a long-term FAA reauthorization, neither the House nor Senate has approved a long-term surface transportation bill. State officials consider long-term funding plans essential because they need to be confident that funds will be forthcoming when they launch highway and transit projects.

President Obama has called for a clean bill with no provisos or limitations on the extension, but Republicans are looking to restrict how and where the money can be used.

Infrastructure spending is woeful around the country, and that affects safety and interstate commerce - both of which are federal government obligations under the Constitution. Infrastructure needs to be maintained and improved, and that costs money and the Republican demands to cut spending will hamper economic growth and potential, to say nothing of imperiling drivers and commuters and ends up costing taxpayers more down the road as the deferred maintenance allows minor problems become major ones that cost significantly more.

Congress Reaches Interim Deal on FAA Funding

Congress has completely screwed up with fight over extending the authorization of taxes that fund FAA operations. They refused to extend the tax authorization, meaning the agency was losing $25 million a day (more than $250 million since the last authorization ran out).

The fight was two-fold. On the one hand, Democrats were pushing a change to union election rules, while the GOP was pushing for the elimination of a rural airport service rule.

The impasse left thousands of FAA workers without paychecks, and put infrastructure projects on hold while the agency scrambled to keep inspections and air safety programs in operation.

So, it's good to know that a deal was brokered and will be passed tomorrow extending matters; it's a clean bill - no changes on either the rural program or the union rules.

No Fiscal Reponsibility In FAA Tax Showdown

There's no fiscal responsibility to be seen in the showdown over FAA programs that has resulted in the expiration of a tax that funds FAA operations other than critical security, air safety, and traffic control functions. The tax, which adds $10-15 per ticket, isn't being collected and that's costing the FAA $125 million a week.

The financial picture makes no sense if you're a fiscal conservative and want to see the agency properly funded (which I do).

Lawmakers risk losing more than $1 billion in revenue from uncollected airline ticket taxes in a quarrel between Senate Democrats and House Republicans who are demanding a $16.5 million cut in rural air service subsidies.The shutdown is less than two weeks old and already the government has lost more than $250 million in revenue because airlines’ authority to collect ticket taxes has expired. The entire annual budget of the rural air services program is about $200 million.

“I’m a fiscal conservative,” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, told the Senate on Monday. “I’m trying to make the cuts that are necessary, trying to do the things that are right, but ... that just doesn’t add up.”

The feds are losing $125 million a week in revenues because the GOP wants to eliminate the rural air program and opposes changes to the union election rules. With a recess looming, they could be looking at $1.2 billion in lost revenues by the time they get around to a vote.

So, it means that the FAA capital program is on hold. This increases the costs of those projects already underway due to idle construction sites and lengthening construction times add costs.

For example, this is what the tax conflict is doing to New Mexico's airports:


There's no fiscal responsibility in this stance.

This is the GOP holding its collective face until it turns blue in the face to get its way. It's a temper tantrum.

Oh, and some of the airlines (Delta) are having a chance of heart - and will begin refunding the tax that it had been collecting even though it was no longer authorized.

FAA Needs To Take Action on Bombardier CRJ-200 Landing Gear Malfunctions

Just days after a Delta CRJ-200 made an emergency landing at JFK airport in New York City when its landing gear didn't properly deploy, another CRJ-200, operated by Skywest Airlines made a similar landing in Milwaukee.

This is far from an isolated event for the CRJ-200 series aircraft. There have been several documented instances where the CRJ-200 landing gear didn't deploy properly, requiring pilots to make emergency landings. In fact, there have been six documented instances in the past two years on the Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft, as compared to two instances for all other aircraft combined.

It would appear that there is some kind of engineering or design defect causing a problem with deploying all landing gear as it should. Corrective actions are necessary here.

The NTSB is investigating the incidents, and it may be time for the FAA to require checks of all landing gear components on board the planes before one of these emergency landing incidents results in fatalities.

No Surprise: Study Finds 3-Hour Tarmac Rule Causes More Problems Than Solves

Well, count me among those who warned that the new rule that prevents airlines from keeping passengers sitting on the tarmac for no more than three hours would cause more problems than it solves.

The study, conducted by industry consultants Darryl Jenkins of The Airline Zone LLC and Joshua Marks of Marks Aviation LLC, concludes that the new rule will create more problems than it solves. Specifically, it states that although the rule will spare 110,000 passengers per year an average of 3.26 hours in (taxi-out) tarmac delays, approximately 400,000 fliers will face even greater disruption due to increased flight cancellations.

“We’re on pace to have 5,000 to 6,000 [more] flights canceled per year because of the rule,” says Marks. “That translates into a 4:1 ratio against [the impact of] tarmac delays.”

One month and counting
As the first full month under the new rule, May was clearly a half-glass-full, half-glass-empty kind of month. According to DOT, there were five tarmac delays of three-plus hours compared to 35 during May 2009. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that cancellations rose from .88 percent of flight operations to 1.24 percent during the same period, a seemingly small increase that actually represents a 40 percent jump. All told, 6,730 flights were canceled in May 2010 compared to 4,810 in 2009.

Airlines have figured that it is in their interest to cancel flights rather than approach the 3-hour tarmac rule, which ends up screwing passengers in the long run. Far from being a boon to passengers, the rule ends up harming far more passengers than it helps - at least during the first month the rule was in effect.

Individual airlines had come up with their own ways to deal with ground delays prior to the enactment of the rule, including jetBlue, whose mangling of schedules in February 2007 resulted in the eventual adoption of the new rules.

FAA To Split Hudson River Airspace

After the disastrous accident that killed the occupants of a sightseeing helicopter and a small private airplane, the FAA has issued new rules splitting the airspace.

One zone will be for local planes and helicopters, such as those carrying commuters and sightseers. Another will be for those passing through the New York City area on longer flights to other destinations.

FAA head Randy Babbitt says the air traffic controller and supervisor who were on duty at the airport where the plane flight originated have been fired.

The changes follow recommendations in an FAA task force report compiled after the collision. They are to take effect Thursday.

Specifically, the FAA calls for the following:

The rule also now requires pilots to follow safety procedures that were previously recommended, but were not mandatory. In a new Special Flight Rules Area over the Hudson and East Rivers, pilots must:

* Maintain a speed of 140 knots or less.
* Turn on anti-collision and aircraft position/navigation lights, if equipped.
* Self-announce their position on specific radio frequencies.
* Carry current charts for the airspace and be familiar with them.

In an exclusion zone below 1,300 feet over the Hudson River, pilots must announce their aircraft type, position, direction and altitude at charted mandatory reporting points and must stay along the New Jersey shoreline when southbound and along the Manhattan shoreline when northbound.

Pilots transiting the Hudson River must fly at an altitude between 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet. Local flights will operate in the lower airspace below 1,000 feet.

The rule also will incorporate provisions of an October 2006 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that restricted fixed-wing aircraft in the exclusion zone over the East River to seaplanes landing or taking off on the river or those specifically approved by FAA air traffic control.

Graphical interpretation of the new rule is here and the situation as it was in place when the accident occurred is here.

Hudson River Air Collision Renews Calls For Increased Regulation

The air collision between a tourist helicopter and a private plane killing nine people has once again sparked a debate over the regulation of low flying aircraft in and around New York City.

The last time this debate occurred was in the aftermath of the death of Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle whose plane crashed into a high rise apartment building, killing Lidle and his instructor.

This crash occurred over the Hudson River near Hoboken, and nine people were killed in all. Seven people have so far been recovered from the waters of the Hudson River, and the NYPD and emergency personnel continue searching the murky waters for the other two victims, along with the Piper Cub airplane. The helicopter was recovered yesterday, and it's hoped that the aircraft can give clues as to why the crash occurred.

Many in the industry and critics content that this was an accident waiting to happen. They're right as the air above the Hudson is a heavily trafficked corridor for tour operators flying tourists around New York Harbor to see the sights, including the Statue of Liberty and Ground Zero.

Normally, aircraft flying below 1,100 feet are not required to make contact with New York regional air traffic controllers, and it's possible that this crash may require additional regulation of aircraft flying in the area.

"We're playing a game of Russian roulette . . . There are 25,000 helicopter trips a year, and no one has to talk to anyone," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

He said that at the very least, pilots should be required to use the frequency and also talk to air-traffic controllers, regardless of their altitude.

Small planes and helicopters also should be required to have traffic collision avoidance systems, or TCAS, which notify pilots of approaching aircraft, Stringer said. They cost from $10,000 to $30,000 apiece.

The Hudson, which is less than three-quarters of a mile wide, serves as an air highway for helicopters, police patrols and small planes.

"That's not a lot of space," said Ray Adams, president of the air-traffic controllers union at Newark Airport. "And it's not unusual at all for us to have 10 to 20 aircraft between the George Washington Bridge and the Statue of Liberty."

Pilots can fly over the Hudson without permission if they stay below 1,100 feet so they don't interfere with jets flying to and from the city's three major airports.

But Dan Rose, a lawyer and pilot who has flown the Hudson, said helicopters should be separated from fixed-wing aircraft to avoid a repeat of Saturday's disaster.

Helicopters should be limited to 500 feet and fixed-wing craft to 1,100, he said.

It's a good idea for someone to manage the airspace, but the air traffic controllers in the region are already overtaxed with the commercial aircraft flying into the three major regional airports - and whose aircraft routinely fly over or near the Hudson at a much higher level.

In addition to the eminently sensible idea of separating fixed wing and helicopter flights by altitude, they should probably institute a corridor on each side of the Hudson to account for North- and South-bound traffic. This way, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are segregated and the flow managed in a better way, improving safety on the ground and in the air.

The problem is that we still don't know the precise reason why the Piper Cub was in this particular airspace and why there was no communication between the helicopter and the plane.

UPDATE:
Reports indicate that the Piper Cub may have been located under the Hudson River.

UPDATE:

 

The photo shows ongoing efforts by a Coast Guard ship and a NYPD boat in the vicinity of where the plane and helicopter crashed. It was taken from Battery Park City using my Canon Rebel XTi with the Tamron 28-300mm XR Di VC (image stabilizer).

Scary Video Of Southwest Air Flight

Here's video taken by a passenger who was on board a Southwest Airlines airplane when part of the fuselage ripped open, tearing a hole in the roof of the cabin.

A Southwest Airlines 737 aircraft that originated in Nashville made an emergency landing in Charleston after the passenger cabin became depressurized because a hole appeared in the fuselage.

Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority spokesman Brian Belcher said Flight 2294 was diverted to Yeager Airport and landed shortly after 6:30 p.m. Monday. There were 126 passengers and five crew members on board.

John Benson of Knoxville was on Flight 2294 with his two sons. Benson was planning on taking his sons to New York by way of Baltimore. What was supposed to be a nice family trip, quickly turned into one of the most frightening experiences of his life.

"Literally the whole top of the plane ripped off," Benson said.

Thankfully, no one was injured when the failure occurred at altitude causing a depressurization of the cabin.

It will be interesting to see why the fuselage suffered the failure. Metal fatigue is likely to be faulted. Watch for investigations to focus on maintenance and for the FAA and NTSB to recommend additional checks to look for failures in this area.

New Report Indicates AF447 Did Not Break Up In Flight

Reports indicate that the plane did not break up in flight, but instead crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Brazil in a nearly vertical position.

"The plane went straight down, almost vertically, towards the surface of the water, very very fast."

The Airbus A330 was unable to fly on autopilot at the time of the crash, air accident investigator Alain Bouillard told reporters in Paris.

That was because the autopilot was not receiving speed, wind or direction information, he said.

"These tell us that the plane has to be, in this case, directed by the pilot," he said. He did not immediately say if the pilots were in control of Air France 447.

Investigators will continue searching for the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder -- commonly known as "black boxes" -- until July 10, he said.

"They normally give a signal for 30 days. We will keep listening another 10 days," he said.

Flight 447 went down in stormy weather while flying from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris.

Brazil called off the search for bodies on June 27, having found 51 of the 228 people who died when the plunged into the sea June 1, according to the military.

Airbus is facing serious trouble over this incident, and the crash this week of another Airbus plane flown by Yemeni Airlines that killed 153 people and had a single survivor, a 13 year-old girl.

Some are calling for Airbus to ground all its long range aircraft.

That's the headline from a story today on the website of the Times of London. The publication writes "Airbus is expected to face calls to ground its worldwide fleet of long-range airliners tomorrow when French accident investigators issue their first account of what caused Air France Flight 447 to crash off Brazil on June 1." The Times writes French officials are likely to cite weather as a factor, but will say that "faulty speed data and electronics were the main problem in the disaster that killed 228 people."

The European Aviation Safety Agency "has a legal and moral obligation to get to the bottom of this problem now. If there is a defective system and the aircraft is unsafe then it should be grounded,"James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law in London says to the Times. The firm represents the families of 20 of the victims of Flight 447 and specializes in aviation issues, according to the Times. Despite the Times' report, however, a universal grounding of long-range Airbus jets is unlikely

The issues relate to faults within the air data systems, including the pitot tubes used in determining air speed.

Suspicion over the air data systems on the Airbus 330 and 340 series has increased after the disclosure that the aircraft had experienced 36 episodes similar to the one that brought Flight 447 down as it flew from Rio de Janeiro to Paris.

Airbus first reported problems with the speed sensors — known as pitot tubes — in 1994, it emerged this week. The company advised remedies, but no mandatory action was taken.

Last weekend, the US National Transportation Safety Board, began looking into two incidents in which Airbus A330s flying from the US suffered critical episodes apparently similar to that of AF447.

This raises the prospect of a possible US order on modifications to the Airbus.

The first US incident occurred on May 21 when a TAM Airlines flight from Miami to Sao Paulo, Brazil, lost primary speed and altitude information while in cruise flight. The other was on a Northwest Airlines flight, on June 23, from Hong Kong to Tokyo.

Accounts on the internet from the pilots report a desperate struggle to keep the jet in the air.

The fate of Flight 447 would probably have remained an eternal mystery had the aircraft not automatically transmitted data back to the Air France maintenance base.

Meanwhile, there is a call for an international blacklist of airlines with substandard safety records, which would cull those airlines that don't follow international mandates and required safety upgrades. However, the Yemeni crash was likely the result of weather as the wind near the airport at the time was blowing at near hurricane force (71mph).

Another New York City Flyby Cancelled?

I regularly receive notifications from the NotifyNYC system, and they sent out emails earlier this morning announcing that as per the FAA, there would be a military flight near Lower Manhattan this morning between the hours of 10:30 to 11:30 am today.

10:25 am - MON, May 11, 2009
Notify NYC - Notification 10:25am
As per the FAA, the planned military flyover has been cancelled.

10:24 am - MON, May 11, 2009
Notify NYC - Notification
This is a message from Notify NYC. Notification 2 issued 05/11/09 at 10:00am. As per the FAA, the planned military flyover has been cancelled.

10:00 am - MON, May 11, 2009
Notify NYC - Notification 10:00am
As per the FAA,a military plane will fly down and back up the Hudson River between the hours of 10:30 to 11:30 am today.

A second notification was issued about a half hour later saying that the flyby was canceled.

There's no word on the kind of planes that were to be involved or the purpose of this flight.

We do know that the White House and Presidential Wing had prepared for a flyby across the District of Columbia, but that was canceled after the outrage from the New York City metro area flyby.

UPDATE:
Bear in mind that the photo taken and released by the White House of the first flyby is awful. (HT: Gabriel Malor at Ace)

I would have tossed it on the circular file because it simply doesn't meet my own standards for publication. It's muddy, includes distracting reflections, and the bottom right includes part of the canopy of the F-16 chase plane.

Meanwhile, one thing that the photo doesn't contain is the EXIF data, which is commonly found on most digital cameras. Why was that information seemingly purged? Was it taken with a simple point and shoot, and not even a prosumer model? That whole episode still reeks.

UPDATE:
Apparently today's planned flight was to include a US Navy P-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft flying around 3,000 feet above the Hudson River. It would be substantially higher than the skyscrapers, but still far lower than typical air traffic in the region.

The report indicates that the FAA canned the order, even though it sent out an alert to the City of New York, which itself alerted the public via the NotifyNYC system.

Something doesn't quite make sense, given that the FAA apparently approved the flyby in the first place, but only at the last moment cancelled it. In light of the flyby mess two weeks ago, how was it approved?

Also, what was the purpose of the mission? That goes unmentioned. Curious.

Low Flying Planes Cause Panic and Evacuations in NYC Metro Area

The FAA says that there is nothing to be worried about as a military flight was engaged in low level flight along the Hudson River today. They say it was preplanned photo shoot and local authorities were aware of the flight, although that didn't exactly soothe frayed nerves of those who saw the flight, which appeared to be a plane with the markings and characteristics of Air Force One and a fighter escort.

When the President isn’t on board, that plane wouldn't be called Air Force One but SAM28000 or SAM29000 (the tail number). Only when the President is on board will they change the call signal on the flight. Since the USAF flies the planes, they can call it a military flight. It could be a new crew familiarizing itself with the NYC metro area for later flights to the region.

It's also possible that they were conducting the flight and taking photos for a US Air Force promotion to run at a later date.

UPDATE:
Here's video:



UPDATE:
Don't these guys know not to buzz the tower?! And yes, I know that this was the USAF whereas Top Gun was USN, but on general principle, it might have been to coordinate activities with the people in the NY metro area instead of causing panic and lots of jittery nerves in these parts.



UPDATE:
All this craziness because the White House wanted to update the file photo of Air Force One over some of the nation's famous landmarks. Why exactly is that a good use of our tax dollars? How much fuel did that little jaunt cost? What about the carbon emissions?

The landmarks haven't changed. Neither has the aircraft. There was no need for this. I might have a different take if they were doing a US Air Force commercial involving AF1, but that wasn't the case. This was a needless waste.

Bird Brained

The events of US Airways Flight 1549 put the spotlight on the FAA and the potentially deadly consequences of bird strikes on planes. Thousands of bird strikes have been reported in recent years, and yet the FAA now seeks to keep that information secret because it believes that the public can't comprehend what that actually means or the risks involved.

Now, we learn that the Port Authority has been lying about just how many bird strikes have been occuring at area airports. Far from reducing the number of bird strikes in the past couple of years, the number of incidents has risen to nearly 1 per day.

The Post's Bill Sanderson reported the real facts on Monday: Plane-fowl collisions at JFK, Newark and La Guardia shot up 60 percent between 2003 and 2007, the last year for which full data are available.

The latest figure, 361, comes to nearly one bird strike per day.

The PA now says it made a "mistake."

No kidding.

But how much do you want to bet that "mistake" would've never happened if the PA had been paying attention in the first place?

Certainly, the PA had good reason to. Experts say that the country's population of Canada geese -- the most dangerous winged offender -- has grown 400 per cent since 1990.

And while not every bird strike brings down an airplane -- obviously -- many, if not most, of them have the potential to do so. The results could be catastrophic.

Indeed, but for Capt. Chesley Sullenberger's singular skills, they would have surely killed all 155 people aboard his plane.

The geese need to go. Now.

Alas, early signs indicate that the authorities still aren't taking the goose menace seriously.

The authorities aren't taking the problem seriously enough and probably wont until there is a deadly accident. But for Chesley Sullenberger's tremendous flying skills, all aboard his plane could have died from the bird strike.

Are bird strikes completely avoidable? Not in the slightest. However, the Port Authority and the FAA must take better steps to manage the risk, and that means dealing with the overpopulation of Canadian geese in the NYC metro area before they do bring a plane down and the pilot and passengers aren't nearly so lucky. That means culling local populations of Canadian geese and doing a better job of reducing birds in and around the local airports. That's a particularly difficult task at JFK given that it is adjacent to the Gateway National Wildlife Refuge, which is an important stop on the Atlantic Coastal flyway.

It also means more effort to track bird flocks in and around the region to steer planes away from potential danger.

Newark Airspace Problems Could Have Deadly Consequences

The FAA changed the routing in and out of Newark-Liberty airport to relieve congestion and improve the chronic delays at the airport.

What's happened instead is a disaster in the wings. Planes and controllers are constantly finding themselves making the wrong turns. All it takes is one mistake and we've got a disaster on our hands.

Controllers are accusing the Federal Aviation Administration of "covering up" by not reporting what some say could be hundreds of "pilot deviations" in which aircraft follow the wrong departure instructions — and send controllers scurrying to quickly correct the mistakes.

When controllers have sought to report many of these incidents, they've been told by supervisors: "Don't bother," said Edward Kragh, the controllers' union representative at Newark.

"It's a nightmare," said Phil Barbarello, eastern regional vice president for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "It hasn't reduced delays. It just adds to the confusion."

The FAA declined to respond to the union's allegations and has confirmed only four pilot deviations — two on Oct. 1 and two on Oct. 16 — have taken place since September.

"Air traffic controllers who are handling planes departing from Newark Liberty International Airport are using procedures that are operationally feasible and safe," according to an FAA statement released by spokesman Jim Peters on Thursday.

Controllers, however, provided The Record with logged accounts of three incidents involving pilot mistakes that happened Thanksgiving morning, just as travelers were departing in the midst of one of the busiest holiday weekends of the year.

* At 8:12 a.m., a Colgan turbo-prop plane that could hold 90 passengers made a left turn when it should have made a right out of the airport, according to the controllers' logs.

* Four minutes later, another Colgan plane — the company has a partnership with Continental — made the opposite mistake, turning right when it should have turned left, according to the same logs.

* Nearly 90 minutes later, at 9:42 a.m., a Continental flight bound for Seattle veered left when it should have turned right, according to the logs.

"Eventually we're going to whack two planes together and then they're going to say something about it," said Kragh.

Those incidents followed three wrong turns in May involving Continental Airlines pilots who flew off-course. But controllers say there have been many more where quick decision-making quite possibly averted a disaster.

"I saw a guy who just headed out straight when he wasn't supposed to. We had to turn the other guys [who were already in the air] out of the way," said Dan D'Agostino, a Newark controller. "We're trained to do something right away."

In its statement, the FAA acknowledged that some aircraft departing the airport "have not followed the assigned heading upon takeoff" as the agency has established its new flight patterns.

If the union is correct on this, the FAA has screwed up bigtime in making sure that pilots know the proper procedures and that they're rigorously followed.

It also means that the FAA's handling of the airport departure and arrival practices is needlessly putting lives in jeopardy and increasing pressure on controllers to watch for deviations in flight plans.

FAA Woes Stem From Failure Of Common Sense

In other industries, companies are fined thousands of dollars a day should their computer systems crash. Companies spend millions of dollars on redundancy - computer systems to back up the primary systems should they fail.

The FAA? No redundancy at all.

Such breakdowns often can be prevented with sufficient redundancy, or enough different computers and communication channels to handle the same workload in an emergency.

Redundancy is so critical for power and water utilities that they can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars a day if they're found insufficiently prepared — and $1 million per day if they're found to be willfully negligent.

"In the industries I work in, if you have something that critical, you generally build more redundancy," said Jason Larsen, a security researcher with consultancy IOActive Inc. who previously spent five years at Idaho National Laboratory examining electrical plants' control systems. "If this (FAA outage) happened at a power plant, I'd be telling them to open up their checkbook and expect to be fined."

FAA spokeswoman Tammy Jones stressed that these types of problems "don't happen on a mass scale or a regular basis," and noted that the FAA handles 50,000 to 60,000 fights a day. And flying on U.S. airlines has never been safer.

"The system is working," she said. "We are making sure people are getting from one place to another."

There are two primary computer systems handling flight plan data processing. One is located in Atlanta. The second is in Salt Lake City. The Atlanta computers have failed twice in the past two years, causing disruptions and delays across the nation.

Yet, the FAA has done nothing to rectify the problem. That means spending the money to build in redundancy into the system. It would be a no-brainer in any other industry, but since this is a government agency, the usual rules don't apply.

And the FAA blows off suggestions that there is insufficient redundancy by noting the infrequent delays due to the computer failures. Right. No company would be able to make those claims. The FAA should be held accountable for the problems, and corrective action taken.

FAA Air Traffic System Suffers Malfunction

This is a developing story, but the FAA is having issues with its air traffic control system. They're calling it a communications problem with the computer system that processes flight plans.

Right now, by the looks of this map, the problem is affecting flights nationwide.

What this likely means is that flights in the air are not affected, but the problem will be for flights that are expected to take off over the next few hours as the flight plans have to be filed before takeoff. It will have a ripple effect meaning that many flights will be delayed and/or can canceled before long.

UPDATE:
Flight plans are being processed through Salt Lake City, one of two locations where flight plans get filed. The problem appears to have originated in Atlanta, which is where a similar glitch occurred last year.

UPDATE:
The problem at the Atlanta facility haven't been resolved, but the Salt Lake City facility is handling the load of processing flight plan data. There are still scattered delays across the country, but flights should be on schedule come tomorrow morning.

New York Area Airports Lack Critical Safety Radar

The region's three major airports lack technology designed to prevent airplanes from colliding with each other, and it could be years before all of them have it, a lawmaker said yesterday.

La Guardia, John F. Kennedy International and Newark Liberty International airports don't have the surface detection equipment technology that alerts air traffic controllers to potential collisions within five miles of an airport, including on runways, Senator Schumer said.

The airports remain at the bottom of the list to receive the new technology, and La Guardia will be among the last airports to receive it in December 2010, Mr. Schumer said.

Kennedy was slated to receive the new system in August of 2008 and Newark in July 2009, he said. Mr. Schumer's comments come three days after a plane taxied onto a runway where a plane was about to land at Newark Liberty. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating that incident, called an incursion.

Also last week, a congressional report said there was "a high risk of a catastrophic runway collision occurring" in the country because of poor leadership, unreliable technology and overworked air traffic controllers.

Mr. Schumer called on FAA officials to expedite the installation of the collision technology, which he said was particularly helpful in bad weather and at night, at New York area airports.

"As one of the busiest areas in the country, we should be at the top of the list when new technology is developed to make us safer," Mr. Schumer said. "On the heels of this week's scathing report, Thursday's near miss at Newark shows the FAA must not continue to drag its feet."

An FAA spokesman said the schedule to install the technology was based on several factors including how busy an airport is and the complexity of an airport's runway and taxiway infrastructure and procedures. Some airports received the technology ahead of New York's airports while others will get it later, an FAA spokesman, Jim Peters, said.

New York's three airports already have ground surveillance radar, although it doesn't offer as much detail about an aircraft's whereabouts as the new technology, Mr. Peters said.

Lawhawk has been writing about the problems at New York's three major airports. Before August 2008, when Kennedy Airport is slated to receive the new system, how many flights will pass through there? How many people will be put in danger? Why can't the system be installed in all three airports simultaneously?

And to turn this into a political debate -- Where is Hillary on this issue? New York's junior Senator seems to be quiet on every issue that truly effects New Yorkers. Now, I am not the biggest fan of Senator Schumer, but he is always outspoken about issues that matter to New Yorkers. He has been out front on gun control, ATM bank fees, port security, and aviation issues. Since Hillary's election I have not heard her speak out on any of these issues. The Country really needs to realize that she is ineffective, and would make a horrible President.

Airline Delays Continue Plaguing NYC Area Airports

In July, I wrote that media outlets could simply recycle their older stories about airline delays because the problems that existed before the 9/11 attacks sharply curtailed air traffic only delayed the inevitable limitations in the current air traffic infrastructure.

Well, it turns out that the worst air traffic delays in the country are at Newark Liberty International Airport. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Neither should it surprise anyone that other airports making the cut as airports with massive delays include LaGuardia and JFK.

Arriving flights into Newark Liberty International Airport were on time barely half the time through the first seven months of 2007, resulting in the worst performance of any major hub in the nation, according to government records released today.

Just 56.83 percent of planes landing at Newark Liberty were on time from January through July, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics show. The metropolitan area's two other airports rounded out the nation's poorest on-time arrival records so far this year, with planes landing on time at LaGuardia 58.59 percent and those arriving on time at John F. Kennedy International 59.16 percent.

A plan to reroute flights into Newark that would free up additional airspace and reduce congestion is facing opposition from Rockland County residents claiming that the FAA plan would increase noise in their communities. The NIMBYism of that opposition is quite evident, and I have to wonder whether they're actually going to hear those planes overhead at all. The Rockland County Executive claims that it would raise the noise levels for 11,000 county residents.

I'm living in Bergen County near the flight path for both Newark and Teterboro, and I seldom hear flights bound for Newark and sometimes hear the planes for Teterboro since they're usually flying closer to the ground to avoid the Newark flight patterns. If the flights are above a certain height, I doubt it will increase noise levels at ground level.

This is a link to the flights into Newark Liberty (EWR) at any given time. Crank out the view to 80 miles, and then you can click on any of the planes to get exact details on flight path and altitude. Note that most of the airliners flying in Rockland airspace are above 10,000 feet. General aviation flights are usually below 10,000 feet.

The rerouting of flights into Newark would help reduce congestion at the airport and improve on time performance at area airports.

Media Could Simply Recycle Airline Delay Stories

I warned just yesterday that media outlets would start running a whole bunch of stories about how airline delays are up. I was right. See Bloomberg, Time, New York Times, IHT, USA Today, MSNBC, etc.

Yet, all of these stories could just as easily have been written in 2000 and 2001, before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, just like this one. The FAA claimed to have taken steps to alleviate delays going into the summer of 2001, after having the worst delays in history the year before. What was suggested at that time? Building new runways:

But earlier Thursday, Garvey told a House panel that runway construction is crucial for reducing delays in the longer term.

While technology can boost airport capacity up to 10 percent, new runways can improve it up to 40 percent.

She said the FAA is streamlining the environmental process for approval of new runways.

Well, this report in May of 2001 noted the problems.

If congressional shortcut efforts are successful, 39 runways at 25 airports
could be added across the country in the next 10 to 15 years at a cost of
$6.5 billion, aviation experts predict.

At least 18 new runways are planned to be operational by 2010.

Even so, the expansions would hardly be enough to keep up with expected air
travel demand. Today, 13 major U.S. airports are strained to overcapacity,
and by 2006, 32 of the nation's top 50 airports will be so too.

So, how many were actually built between 2000 and 2006? Anyone? Bueller?

It would appear to be a grand total of 15 runways (assuming all listed were completed in the time frame).

That barely keeps pace with the demand from 2000, let alone growth going forward.

The 9/11 attacks gave the travel industry and government a few extra years before the problems would once again resume their upward move beyond the existing capacity.

As this site notes, "..there are thousands of airports in the United States, yet more than 70% of commercial traffic is concentrated in 27 hub airports. These airports have added a total of four new runways since 1995."

You aren't going to reduce traffic and congestion at the airports unless new capacity is built into the system or alternatives are built to relieve that congestion.

Why has the situation returned to the pre-9/11 levels? Simple. People are traveling and the prices for air travel are still extremely reasonable and no new capacity has been added to airports or the routes that are causing problems and infrastructure has not been upgraded to handle higher capacities.

For example, there are no new runways at JFK, LGA, or EWR in the New York City metro area. The situation in New York City airspace is extremely crowded as the three area airports share the airspace and incursions are a disaster waiting to happen. Spacing aircraft out further means fewer planes in a given patch of the sky, and less planes in the air means less flights going where they have to go. It doesn't matter how many flights are scheduled.

Airlines may factor in waiting times into their flight schedules, but even those waiting times are still exceeded because of the ripple effect. Say a flight from Boston gets into New York 15 minutes late. That means that the turnaround runs late and the slot for that plane to fly out to Chicago gets bumped. The delays pile up and spread through the system. A problem in New York could have a ripple effect for days after the situation appeared to clear.

A passenger bill of rights pushed by Congress will do absolutely nothing to improve the number of planes that takeoff or land. It might help those planes delayed more than three hours. Duty rules limit the number of hours that pilots can be in the air. It also does nothing to deal with flight delays due to weather.

The outdated air traffic control system also plays a big part of the problem, and Congress is not even bothering to address that.

The fixes that need to be addressed:
1) new airports to relieve congestion at existing airports;
2) new runways at airports where there is room to expand and it makes sense to be incorporated into regional transportation systems;
3) fund high speed rail for the Boston to Washington, DC corridor, the San Francisco to San Diego corridor, and the New York to Chicago routes;
4) implement new air traffic control system that allows safer routings of planes in close proximity to each other;
5) identify bottlenecks in the existing system and begin working to reduce them until the long term solutions can be put in place.

In the New York metro area, this means making Stewart Airport a major part of the solution. That means building a link between the airport and Midtown Manhattan that enables high speed transfers. It would have the immediate impact of reducing congestion at LGA and JFK because they simply do not have capacity.

Similarly, the high speed rail links would provide city center to city center transit options that are comparable in time to airline flights for those cities. The US is severely limited in its rail options. Acela service on Amtrak has been limited due to top speed limitation and infrastructure limitations. Money must be spent to improve the infrastructure, enabling the trains to travel faster between NYC and Washington. Dedicated high speed rail lines should be considered, though the costs will be exorbitant, especially in the Northeast corridor.

So, who is to blame for the situation? Well, airlines continue to plan flights during peak areas knowing full well that there are simply not enough slots for take off, causing unnecessary delays. State and local governments plus NIMBY means opposition to airport expansion projects around the country. Congress and the Administration have decided to take the path of least resistance - sound and fury signifying nothing. There has been no leadership on the subject, and air travel and the transportation system are integral to long term economic growth. Neglecting the transportation system will have significant consequences going forward.

The FAA Computer Glitch

Senator Chuck Schumer slammed the FAA over a computer glitch that caused thousands of delays and cancellations across the US yesterday and questioned the FAA's competency to oversee the nation's air traffic system. The delays were worst at New York area airports, which prompted Schumer to call for the whole incident to be investigated. His comments suggested that the FAA was incompetent to deal with the air traffic system.

I wonder, if the FAA is incompetent to handle the air traffic control system, what else is the federal government unable to handle on a regular basis because of incompetency? And besides investigations, what does Schumer actually propose doing to fix the system? Is he willing to call for the construction of new airports to relieve congestion at existing airports? Push for more money to bolster the rail system in areas where major cities are close enough to make rail travel a viable alternative?